Held Hostage?

[sail7seas]

Yea Jane, I have a dark side :rolleyes:. It was pretty bizarre, I was stunned that she used the "m" word. Needless to say that has not endeared us to Princess.

 

 

It was crew behavior on our last Princess cruise that made it our last Princess cruise. If it was only one or two persons, we would brush it off but it was prevalent. i can't say if it was only that ship at that point in time but we were not willing to risk more vacation time and dollars to give them another chance. That had been about our 6 th cruise with them.

 

When we left that ship, we knew we would never return and we have not.

 

[world~citizen]

Hi All -

 

Given the latest incident on Carnival Dream - If the ship is indeed safely docked at port - what gives the cruise line the right to not allow passengers to get off the ship?

 

The cruise contract.

[Seavoyage]

Eerie? Try this one.

 

A while back one passenger on the Ryndam exercised his "free will" and tried to drop the anchor putting all lives and the ship in extreme peril.

 

Should the ship's captain not have absolute control when careless acts of one passenger can jeopardize the safety of all others? Know this before you board your next ship.

 

Hi There SwissMyst - obviously not my first rodeo with regard to cruising....are you seriously comparing the dropping of an anchor mid-seas to a passenger wanting disembark a safely docked ship? The only safety concern would perhaps be to myself having to carry my own luggage....

[Netta7]

Last year after numerous complaints about airlines like those on this thread, a law was passed in the US requiring airlines to allow passengers on domestic flights to disembark after a 3 hour delay on the tarmac. When the law change was under consideration, airlines lobbied hard against it and gave many reasons why this would be impossible and devastating to both the flights and their business.

 

Now that the law has passed there have been improvements for airline passengers. When faced with hefty government fines for not allowing people to disembark, airlines found a way to make it work and haven't been stranding passengers at the same rate before the law passed. While there are clearly some emergency situations where it wouldn't be possible, I suspect cruise lines would find a way to allow passengers to disembark, if required, just as the airlines have done.

[sail7seas]

Last year after numerous complaints about airlines like those on this thread, a law was passed in the US requiring airlines to allow passengers on domestic flights to disembark after a 3 hour delay on the tarmac. When the law change was under consideration, airlines lobbied hard against it and gave many reasons why this would be impossible and devastating to both the flights and their business.

 

Now that the law has passed there have been improvements for airline passengers. When faced with hefty government fines for not allowing people to disembark, airlines found a way to make it work and haven't been stranding passengers at the same rate before the law passed. While there are clearly some emergency situations where it wouldn't be possible, I suspect cruise lines would find a way to allow passengers to disembark, if required, just as the airlines have done.

 

 

That decision would not be solely made by a cruise line.

They would be debarking those guests into a country which may or may not agree to allow them to enter. Immigration/Customs/Officials required/infrastructure limitations/small airport/taxis/availability of hotel rooms......etc etc etc

 

 

[mariner]

The key phrase DOMESTIC. You're in St Maarten (Holland) or perhaps the airport is St. Martin (France).

[Boatdrill]

The main airport is on the Dutch side.

[Taxguy77]

Hi KAKcruiser -

 

Thank you for your reply - I thought about that as well - but again pax are reporting overflowing toilets - unsanitary conditions etc. i just wonder what law allows the cruise line to tell people they have no rights to disembark on their own free will....

I guess I never thought or imagined that my rights or what I consider to be my rights would be disregarded or taken away....

 

Read your Contract of Passage!:eek:

Sorry to admit I never read mine, either. :(

[peaches from georgia]

These recent incidents have one Congressperson talking about a "Cruise Passengers Bill of Rights". As it is the cruiseline has all the legal power to put whatever they like in the cruise contract and pax have no recourse. :mad:

[sail7seas]

These recent incidents have one Congressperson talking about a "Cruise Passengers Bill of Rights". As it is the cruiseline has all the legal power to put whatever they like in the cruise contract and pax have no recourse. :mad:

 

 

We have recourse.

We don't have to cruise.

 

We can do other travel if we wish.

 

[peaches from georgia]

We have recourse.

We don't have to cruise.

 

We can do other travel if we wish.

 

Of course, but if something goes wrong you've got nothing. Like the airlines used to be able to hold you captive on a runway for 7, 8 or more hours. A Cruise Bill of Rights may be worth a look at least. Booking a cruise shouldn't strip you of all your rights with no reasonable recourse.

[RuthC]

Please, hold me hostage on a ship docked in St. Maarten for 6,7,8, or more hours! Please!!!

It's too hot to leave the ship anyway. So, hold me aboard with a pool, hot tub, Lido full of food, movie theatre, A/C, and all the other amenities shipboard life offers.

Please!!!

Being "held hostage" on a ship is in no way comparable to being "held hostage" on an airplane.

[lvz2cruz]

It was crew behavior on our last Princess cruise that made it our last Princess cruise. If it was only one or two persons, we would brush it off but it was prevalent. i can't say if it was only that ship at that point in time but we were not willing to risk more vacation time and dollars to give them another chance. That had been about our 6 th cruise with them.

 

When we left that ship, we knew we would never return and we have not.

 

 

That's exactly how we feel about NCL.

[broberts]

Hi All -

 

Given the latest incident on Carnival Dream - If the ship is indeed safely docked at port - what gives the cruise line the right to not allow passengers to get off the ship?

 

As others have posted, the cruise contract. But the question assumes that it was the cruise line which caused passengers to remain aboard. I don't think there is any evidence of this. As has been pointed out it may well have been the St Maarten authorities.

 

River cruising is looking better all the time!

 

http://www.gadling.com/2011/07/12/russian-riverboat-tragedy-highlights-cruise-ship-safety/

 

http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/post/2011/04/river-cruise-ship-danube-collision-accident-viktoria/155756/1

 

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2012/07/articles/fires-1/fire-breaks-out-on-rhine-river-cruise-ship/

[summersigh]

Hi KAKcruiser -

 

Thank you for your reply - I thought about that as well - but again pax are reporting overflowing toilets - unsanitary conditions etc. i just wonder what law allows the cruise line to tell people they have no rights to disembark on their own free will....

 

I guess I never thought or imagined that my rights or what I consider to be my rights would be disregarded or taken away....

 

The problem on the Carnival Dream was with a back-up generator. The tales of overflowing toilets etc were greatly blown up by folks looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Apparently, the pax were flown home to not take a chance of another "Triumph" PR nightmare. :cool: